Live data from Hacker News

LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This

arxiv.org

271–274 of 274 posts

Re: LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This

#271
post #142

Been saying this from the beginning. Let's look at comparitor of a human result. What is the likelihood that a junior college student with access to google will generate a "hallucination" after reading a textbook and doing some basic research on a given topic. Probably pretty high. In our culture, we're often told to fake it till you make it. How many of us are probabilistic-ly hallucinating knowledge we've regurgita…

If you ask a student to solve a problem while admitting when they don't an answer, they will stop at generating gook for an answer. LLMs on the other hand regularly spew bogus with high confidence.

You’re idealizing. Students also hallucinate / bullshit their way through things.

Re: LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All this is saying is our neural architecture has specific places that respond to danger and the instinct of fear. Anyone who has seen an MRI knows this is the case. It does not mean actual knowledge of snakes is encoded in our DNA. Our brains are "trained" on the data they receive during early development. To the degree that evolutionary pressures stored "data," it stored data about how to make our brains (compute)…

Yes, we are definitely talking about two different processes. Biology is far more complex, nuanced and inscrutable. We don’t understand what all is in our DNA. We do have strong ideas about it. When it comes down to it, code is data and DNA is code. There are natural pressures to have less DNA so the hundreds of MB of DNA in humans might be argued to be somewhat minimal. If you have ever dealt with piles of handcraft…

> The line defining “code” and “data” is thus heavily blurred and any argument about how humans are far superior because of the “reduced number of training examples” is definitely missing the millennia of evolution that created us in the first place.

I disagree. The line is quite clear. Our factual memories do not persist from one generation to another. Yet this is what modern ML does.

The "data" encoded in DNA is not about knowledge or facts, it is knowledge about our architecture. Modern ML is a like a factory that outputs widgets based upon knowledge of lots of pre-existing widgets. DNA is a like a factory that outputs widgets based upon lots of previous pre-existing factories.

The factory is the "code" or "verb." The widgets are the "data" or "nouns." Completely separable and objectively so.

Re: LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we are definitely talking about two different processes. Biology is far more complex, nuanced and inscrutable. We don’t understand what all is in our DNA. We do have strong ideas about it. When it comes down to it, code is data and DNA is code. There are natural pressures to have less DNA so the hundreds of MB of DNA in humans might be argued to be somewhat minimal. If you have ever dealt with piles of handcraft…

> The line defining “code” and “data” is thus heavily blurred and any argument about how humans are far superior because of the “reduced number of training examples” is definitely missing the millennia of evolution that created us in the first place. I disagree. The line is quite clear. Our factual memories do not persist from one generation to another. Yet this is what modern ML does. The "data" encoded in DNA is no…

If you are talking about facts like "cos(0) = 1" then yes, of course I agree; Those kinds of facts do not persist simply by giving birth. However, that's a very narrow view of "data" or "knowledge" when talking about biological systems. Humans use culture and collaboration to pass that kind of knowledge on. Spiders don't have culture and collaboration in the same sense. We are wired/evolved with the ability to form communities which is a different kind of knowledge altogether.

It seems like you are simultaneously arguing that humans (who have a far more complex network, or set of networks than current LLMs) can recognize a class of something given a single or few specific examples of the thing while also arguing that the structure has nothing to do with the success of that. The structure was created over many generations going all the way back to the first single-celled organisms over 3.7 billion years ago. The more successful networks for what eventually became humans were able to survive based on the traits that we largely have today. Those traits were useful back then for understanding that one cat might act like another cat without needing to know all cats. There are things our brains can just barely do (eg: higher level mathematics) that a slightly different structure might enable... and may have existed in the past only to be wiped out by someone who could think a little faster.

Also, check out epigenetics. DNA is expressed differently based on environmental factors of previous and current generations. The "factories" you speak of aren't so mechanical as you would make them seem.

All of this is to say, Human biology is wonderfully complicated. Comparing LLMs to humanity is going to be fraught with issues because they are two very different things. Human intelligence is a combination of our form, our resources and our passed on knowledge. So far, LLMs are simply another representation of our passed on knowledge.

Re: LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live with This

#274
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, fiction writer. Some of us like little stories.

Its important that anyone reading fiction knows its fiction. Without that we can run into a situation where a fictional story on the radio convinces the public that we are under alien attack in what could be called a war of the worlds.

Yes! Or a situation where the public was not under any misconception at all, where there were multiple intermissions throughout the play calling attention to the fact that it was a work of fiction, but someone made up the idea of mass panic because it made for a good story that sold a lot of newspapers!

I would say that it's the responsibility of the reader to read any content in the context of which it's published. For example, to expect a radio play to be fictional as the vast majority of listeners did.

Post reply on HN